My dear Candle-J, assuming that you are neither another cash-crook nor one of the alternatively rational, I advise you to read before you post. We
were discussing this heatedly on ATS when Muhammad was having a hard time in Medina.

Islam was once a great religion of enlightenment which bettered the world as we know it. It brought the majority of medieval Europe out of darkness,
and was famous for a secular, tolerant attitude towards other Abrahamic faiths.

What we have seen in Islam in the last 50 years is a travesty. The rise of radicalism, Wahabiism, and radical Shiite groups amoung the vast,
uneducated and poor peoples of Africa and Asia is destroying 500 years of enlightenment. Unfortunately, radical Islam is appealing to those poor,
starving, illiterate masses because it offers them in death everything they cannot have in life. The true words and nature of the Holy Koran are
being twisted in a way to make murder, oppression and hate to norms of Islam. The peaceful Muslim traditionalists, Sunnis, and other conservatives
are caught in the shadow of a rising tide of radicalism, and are frozen with fear. This cannot be allowed to happen, for I know this is not the true
nature of Islam.

As much as it may cost us in blood, tears, and money, we (the Industrialized western world) must make an effort to reach out to the underpriviledged
Islamic peoples and lift them up, so that they can see the glory that life provides us, and that it is worth living, and that your neighbors can be
trusted.

The alternative is a very scary thought, and unfortunately, it seems to be what Bush and his cronies seem to be preparing for.

I believe that Islam is a beautiful faith, but what I seem today (for the most part) is not Islam.

They didn't bring Europe out of the dark. So what if they were more technologically advanced. They united all of Europe under the Christian church,
because they inspired a Crusade that was created by Pope Urban II. If they hadn't captured Jerusalem, killed Christian pilgrams, and established
their false religion in Jerusalem, we probably would have less war in the world.
So if you consider enlightenment through violence a good thing, then yes the creation of the Islamic religion did benefit the world... otherwise, no,
it didn't.
The Muslims are poor and don't like their way of life.
Ok, do something about it. War doesn't help, all you do is destroy. That's their fault. Maybe if they weren'e being f*cking dumb@$$'s and grew up
we wouldn't have this problem. They are destroying Israel while the Israelis try to preserve it.
Anyone that wants to can escape poverty. read through history, it happens all of the time.

"The crusades were a series of military expeditions by western European Christians to the Middle East in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The
crusaders saw themselves as trying to free the Holy Land from the rule of the Muslims. The crusades were mainly directed toward Jerusalem and the
Christian shrine of the Holy Sepulcher. There were eight major crusades.

The cause of the crusades is an issue of debate. It is widely believed that the crusades were purely holy wars, but many other motivating factors were
actually involved. The crusades arose out of the feudal society of the eleventh century, and they offered crusaders freedom, adventure, and the
possibility of economic gain. Also, the crusades were a defensive act against the flourishing Muslim state, which Christians perceived as a threat to
their faith and their way of life.

The first crusade started when the Byzantine Emperor, Alexis Comnenus, requested aid from the west against the Muslims. Instead of just sending
troops, Pope Urban II invited his people to engage in a holy war to take back Jerusalem. Peter the Hermit, a monk and priest, also began preaching the
crusade (he even led an army during the first crusade that was defeated by the Turks). As a result, Alexis received crusaders in answer to his
request, and the first crusade was born in 1095.

The volunteer crusaders faced an imposing task: crossing thousands of miles of unfamiliar territory to fight against unknown countries. Yet because of
their great fervor, the crusaders managed to take Antioch in 1098. The crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099, killing 10,000 Jews and Muslims. The
crusaders set up the Crusader States along the coast of Palestine and built up the cities they had conquered.

The third Crusade (1189-1192) was a response to the capture of Jerusalem. In 1187 Saladin, a great Muslim warrior and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty
in Egypt, had recaptured Jerusalem. Unlike his Christian opponents, Saladin did not sack the city upon his victory. This Crusade was led by Frederick
Barbarosa, the Holy Roman Emperor, King Richard I of England and King Philip II of France, three of Europe's most powerful monarchs. It accomplished
little.

Over the next hundred years, many more crusades were launched, but the crusaders never again experienced great success. They ruled small areas of the
coast until their final defeat by the Mamluks at Acre at the end of the thirteenth century. Overall, the crusades were a military failure. To the
Arabs, they were just one more annoying barbarian invasion, not nearly as much of a threat as the Mongols were later.

Although many people were killed during the crusades, there were many positive results for both the east and the west. The most obvious result of the
crusades was the establishment of trade routes between east and west, which in turn resulted in positive contact between the cultures. Although the
pope initially tried to ban trade with the Muslims, he backed down in 1344, and a flourishing trade market was born that benefited the economy of both
cultures. The combination of these cultures resulted in the invention of the windmill, the compass, gunpowder, and clocks. Scholarly exchange took
place. For example, Muslim architects began to imitate the European pointed arch, while Europeans learned Greek medicine from the Muslims. Muslims and
Europeans learned new military techniques from one another. As a result of learning new military strategies and uniting themselves against one cause,
the Muslims developed a stronger religious nation. The crusades also accelerated the decline of feudalism and the Byzantine empire."

The reason the Muslins eventually declined was due to rampant European colonialism in the 17th and 18th century. We screwed thme over, just like
everyone else (see Africa and the America for examples), and know we are facing the results of the seeds our forefathers planted so many years ago.

To think that all poor people can easily escape poverty with just a little hard work are the words of someone who was born into wealth. Poor people
escape poverty usually be working very hard AND by taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves.

In the case of Americans, we took advantage of the fact that we lived in a vast, unexplored and uninhabited (sorry Native Americans) continent with
all its natural resources, space and strategic location available to us. The poor peoples of Africa and Asia have no such opportunity. All I am
saying is that if we gave them opportunities to grow, they would be alot more like us and alot less like the stereotypical Muslims you probably
envision.

With recent advancements in agricultural and irrigational technology, deserts can be terraformed to create forests. They could grow their own food.
That's what we do in America.

Explain this to me...
Why does someone have to give them that oppurtunity when they already have it?

Maybe if they would stop being so jealous of the Israelis advancements and accept cultural and technological assimilation they could help to build
better home countries for themselves.

Terroristic threats don't help.
For example, in Israel, every single time peace talks start, it's awesome some radical Palestinian that goes and blows himself up on a bus or
something.

Why?

Becase they cannot accept being equal to the Israelis?
not really...
They have been fighting for the past forever over a little strip of land about the size of 10 square blocks. Do you really need that land to worship
your God? If so, find a new God.

Christians got out of the conflict after the 14th century. We can worship God without having that peice of sacred ground. I feel free to worhip
my God anywhere and I'm not pressured to worship him or not worship him at certain times or places by my religious leaders.

Why-o-why do these threads always result in someone or something being bashed?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!

The question posed was YOUR THOUGHTS.....not your IDEOLOGY and philosophies....geezus!

There is no 'perfect' religion out there in the world....who really cares.....but those who try to make it care/matter! God is God...no matter
under what or whose religion we want to put Him under......where in the hell is religious TOLERANCE here?!?!?

I can whole-heartedly understand why Illmatic comes and literally calls people 'idiotic' and such......! I would to........

Islam is....another religion. And like all...no, most religions it ends up pitting people against each other. Despite the best intentions of course...

Now that I think about it, I guess the only major religion that I don't have a problem with is Buddhism. It seems to be relatively non-intrusive,
stays out of politics, and doesn't inspire hate of "the other" like certain other religions (you know who you are).

According to the fact that there is a bunch of peoples here that hate islam/muslims, I don't really think that you'll be able to have an obvective
view of islam here... If I was you Candle, I should send a u2u to Illmatic, he knows more on islam than any one here ( according to his posts ).

Originally posted by Salem
According to the fact that there is a bunch of peoples here that hate islam/muslims, I don't really think that you'll be able to have an obvective
view of islam here... If I was you Candle, I should send a u2u to Illmatic, he knows more on islam than any one here ( according to his posts ).

Believe me, you will waste your time on this topics.

Thank you....
And I hope that Candle understands that I didn't post what I did becuase I wanted to bash his otherwise decent topic....but as Salem just
mentioned........there are quite a few here at ATS, that don't like Muslim's or Islam.
I started reading the thread and noticed early on that it was already decending into a 'bashfest'. That is not fair to those who hold such beliefs,
etc....namely Illmatic. Again, I hold to my position on this and in defence of Illmatic and others. Though he needs no 'defence' from me nor
anyone else, for he can definately hold his own!
But I can see the idiocy of this topic degenerating into a Islam bashfest and that is totally idiotic........and be sure that many here would say the
same.....

I believe that there is no post count on ATS? :|
Except for the Et/NWO/Awareness thingy that I believe do not take into acount posts in the religious forum?

Anyway, I believe in people's right to criticise and, most of the christian bashing islamism will probably use the same arguement you used against me
bashing christianism, maybe before they do that they'll remember my post.

I believe that there is no post count on ATS? :|
Except for the Et/NWO/Awareness thingy that I believe do not take into acount posts in the religious forum?

Anyway, I believe in people's right to criticise and, most of the christian bashing islamism will probably use the same arguement you used against me
bashing christianism, maybe before they do that they'll remember my post.

I agree also antichrist. You have the right to an opinion but to 'target' your opinion in any direction other than a 'nuetral' opinion amounts to
'bashing'....ie: biased, unneeded criticism, etc. eh?

The bases of Islam in its Absolute was a great religion, just tampered by greedy men.
Every religion has had its fair share of these men.
And i really cant stand these islam bashers nor these super christians who seem to believe that christians are the rightful owners of earth.
Deep

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.